Previous 24 / 51 Next

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 21 Opinion of the Court help ensure that courts appropriately respect the bedrock First Amendment principles at stake. To sum up: In light of the other meaningful prophylactic measures available to the Government, and given the severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech that ensues from limiting a political party’s spending in support of its candidates, we conclude that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are “disproportionate” and are not “necessary” and “narrowly tailored” for the circumvention interest it seeks to protect. McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 199, 218, 220 (quotation marks omitted); Cruz, 596 U. S., at 306.5 IV Notwithstanding all of the above, amicus and intervenors contend that we should adhere to Colorado II as a matter of stare decisis. Colorado II, however, is akin to a three-legged stool where all three legs have already been knocked out—here, by post-Colorado II cases. In like circumstances, the Court sometimes has simply described similarly hollowed-out —————— 5 In 2014, Congress amended the political-party coordinatedexpenditure limits to exempt certain categories of political-party spending. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, 128 Stat. 2772–2773. The law now imposes no limit on the amount that a political party may spend in coordination with candidates on election recounts, post-election-day contests, and other election-related legal proceedings. 52 U. S. C. §§30116(a)(9), (d)(5). And the law raised to $20 million the limit on how much a party may spend in coordination with its candidates on a Presidential nominating convention. Ibid. We need not and do not rely on those statutory changes as a basis for our decision today, but those carveouts further illustrate that Congress is not pursuing an anti-corruption or anti-circumvention rationale with the current political-party coordinated-expenditure limits. It is hard to understand how corruption concerns could justify limits on spending on candidate advertising while allowing spending on a candidate’s legal fees. After all, to a candidate, there is no particular difference between coordinated spending on messaging or coordinated spending on lawyers.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether FECA's limits on political parties' coordinated expenditures with candidates violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and specifically whether Colorado II—which upheld those limits under a deferential standard of review—remains good law in light of the Court's subsequent, more demanding campaign finance jurisprudence requiring that restrictions be "necessary," "narrowly tailored," and not "disproportionate" to the government's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption.

Alleged Acts: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposes limits on the amount a political party may spend in coordination with its candidates during political campaigns—known as "coordinated-expenditure limits." 52 U.S.C. §30116(d). These limits vary by office: for Senate candidates, the national party committee may spend between $130,600 and $4,071,800; for House candidates, between $65,300 and $130,600; and for Presidential candidates, up to $32,392,200. In 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), then-candidate for Senate JD Vance, and then-Representative Steve Chabot sued the FEC, arguing that these limits violate the First Amendment. They contend that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. (Colorado II), 533 U.S. 431 (2001)—which upheld the limits—is no longer good law in light of the Court's more recent campaign finance decisions, particularly McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), and FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022). Notably, the United States (Executive Branch) agreed with plaintiffs that the limits are no longer constitutional, declining to defend them.

Procedural history: The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' challenge and upheld FECA's coordinated-expenditure limits, applying Colorado II. However, a majority of the Sixth Circuit judges questioned Colorado II's continued vitality.

Summary: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC is a landmark First Amendment campaign finance decision in which the Supreme Court struck down FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures as unconstitutional. Writing for the 6–3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh held that existing base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements together provide sufficient protection against quid pro quo corruption, making the additional coordinated-expenditure limits "disproportionate" and not "narrowly tailored." The Court formally overruled Colorado II (2001), finding its reasoning had been thoroughly undermined by subsequent precedents, particularly McCutcheon and Cruz. The dissent, authored by Justice Kagan, argued that without the caps, donors could circumvent base contribution limits by funneling large contributions through political parties to candidates, thereby reviving opportunities for quid pro quo corruption. The decision applies equally to all political parties and removes a significant regulatory constraint on party-candidate coordination.

Conclusion: In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that FECA's political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. The Court concluded that the combination of (i) base contribution limits, (ii) earmarking rules (52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(8)), and (iii) disclosure requirements (52 U.S.C. §30104(b)) already serve as three sufficient prophylactic measures against quid pro quo corruption. The coordinated-expenditure limits would operate as a "fourth prophylaxis" that is "disproportionate" and not "necessary" given the less-speech-restrictive alternatives. The Court also noted that a majority of States do not impose similar limits on party coordinated expenditures, and no evidence of resulting corruption has materialized.

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance
Conflict of Interests

Applicable Law(s): First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Federal Election Campaign Act

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 30, 2026

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-621_h315.pdf

Primary Documents

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications